金剛般若論會釋 3.32

3.32

自下心具足中大文第三論名施設大利法，前明佛證正覺，此明依證起說施設正教大利眾生。世親此下子段第二疑云：「若一切善法滿足得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，則所說法不能得大菩提。何以故？以所說法無記法故。」經文有二，初、約施設此經利益大小，顯佛一代所說皆大利益眾生；次、「汝謂如來作是念」下，破外疑執。前中先舉大施多福，「若人以此般若」下，比顯不如修一偈經大益。初文有三，一、舉施福多，二、顯修經少，三、比校施設此經利益大小。論文有二，初、標名屬，次、逐難解。依檢新本，此中有十重比校，此百分不及一，即是一分修此經一偈福為百分，以彼大施多福，比此百分中一分猶不及，故言百分不及一。千分不及一者，此第二更分修一偈經福為千分（准前解之）。百千萬分不及一者，第三、四合舉之也。依新本，第三云百千分，即十萬分中亦不及一。第四云俱胝百千分者，俱胝當此千萬，以百千為數，數至千萬，即萬億分亦是非一，彼大施福比此修一偈經福，萬億分中亦不及一。魏本三、四合說，仍脫億字，故言百千萬分不及一也。歌羅分者，此第五也，是西方別數名耳。依新本，此第五名俱胝那庾多百千分，一俱胝是千萬，萬俱胝是一那庾多當千億，以百千為一數，數至千億，是一那庾多百千。又以一那庾多百千為一數，數至一俱胝，名俱胝那庾多百千，百千該分也。不知魏文何故喚千該說為歌羅分耶？下之五數未見解處，諸本中亦有差別異，應對檢之。世親偈云，「雖言無記法，而說是彼因，是故一法寶，勝無量珍寶」。上二句就他宗以釋疑，下兩句依自宗而遣滯。大乘諸佛名、句、文三，唯是善故。《十地論》云，一者聲，二善字。又彼論中，束此十重比校為四種勝，初及第八竿分、第九數、第十喻總名數勝，以數無限故，攝得餘數；第五歌羅分不及一名力勝，彼論不釋（顯此經之勢力施福不及）；第六數分不及一名不相似勝，此福無數，彼福可數故，此福若無數，云何言不及一？第七優婆尼沙陀分不及一名因勝，此福因果勝彼因果故。雖作此釋，未見所以，此十皆是數名，何故有顯力勝，有顯無似勝，有顯因果勝？此論不釋意，一分數彌多，則一分彌少，言彼大施多福比此最少一福亦不及也，故彼偈言，「數、力、無似勝，無似因亦然，一切世間法，不可得為喻」。

Next, within the [chapter on] "Sufficiency of the Mind", the third major section is named in the treatise "Provision of Dharmas of Great Benefit". The previous [section] explained the Buddha's realization of correct awakening; this [section] explains that relying upon realization, he gives rise to exposition, providing the correct teaching to greatly benefit sentient beings. Vasubandhu raises the second doubt within this subsection below: "If one attains anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi through the fulfillment of all wholesome dharmas, then the spoken Dharma cannot attain great bodhi. Why is that? Because the spoken Dharma is an indeterminate (avyākṛta) dharma." The sūtra text has two [parts]: first, based on the magnitude of the benefit of providing this sūtra, it shows that everything spoken by the Buddha throughout his life greatly benefits sentient beings; second, from "Do you suppose the Tathāgata has this thought?" onwards, it refutes the external doubtful attachments. In the first [part], it first presents the great merit of extensive giving; from "if a person, with this Prajñā..." onwards, it shows by comparison that it does not equal the great benefit of cultivating a single verse of the sūtra. The first text has three [parts]: 1. presenting the great merit of giving; 2. showing the slightness of cultivating the sūtra; 3. comparing the magnitude of the benefit of providing this sūtra. The treatise text has two [parts]: first, stating the name and classification; second, resolving the difficulties point by point. According to an examination of the new translation, there are ten tiers of comparison here. "Does not equal one hundredth part" means taking the merit of cultivating one verse of this sūtra as divided into one hundred parts, and the great merit of that extensive giving does not even equal one part among these hundred parts; hence it says "does not equal one hundredth part". "Does not equal one thousandth part": this is the second, further dividing the merit of cultivating one verse of the sūtra into one thousand parts (to be understood following the previous explanation). "Does not equal one hundred-thousand-millionth part": this combines the third and fourth. According to the new translation, the third says "one hundred thousandth part", which means it does not even equal one part in a hundred thousand. The fourth says "a hundred thousand koṭi parts": a koṭi corresponds here to ten million (crore); counting by hundred-thousands up to ten million, this is ten thousand million (a trillion) parts, which is also not just one; that merit of extensive giving, compared to this merit of cultivating one verse of the sūtra, does not even equal one part among ten thousand million. The Wei translation combines the third and fourth, and furthermore omits the character "hundred million" (yì), hence it says "does not equal one hundred-thousand-millionth part". "A kalā part": this is the fifth, which is simply a distinct numerical term of the Western regions. According to the new translation, this fifth is called "a hundred-thousand koṭi-nayuta part". One koṭi is ten million; ten thousand koṭis is one nayuta, corresponding to a hundred billion. Taking one hundred thousand as a single count, counting up to a hundred billion, this is one nayuta of hundred-thousands. Further, taking one nayuta of hundred-thousands as a single count, counting up to one koṭi, it is called "a hundred-thousand koṭi-nayuta"; "hundred-thousand" encompasses the fractions. It is unknown why the Wei text refers to "thousand encompasses" as a kalā part. For the remaining five numbers below, no explanation has yet been found; among the various editions there are also differences, which should be checked against one another. Vasubandhu's verse says: "Although called an indeterminate dharma, / yet it is spoken of as its cause; / therefore, a single Dharma jewel / surpasses immeasurable rare jewels." The first two lines resolve the doubt according to other traditions; the lower two lines eliminate obstructions according to his own tradition. For the Mahāyāna Buddhas, name, phrase, and phoneme—all three are exclusively wholesome. The Daśabhūmika-śāstra says: "First is sound, second is wholesome words." Furthermore, in that treatise, these ten tiers of comparison are condensed into four kinds of superiority: the first along with the eighth (gaṇanā part), ninth (saṅkhyā), and tenth (upamā) are collectively called "superiority in number", because number is boundless and therefore subsumes the remaining numbers; the fifth, "does not equal one kalā part", is called "superiority in power", which that treatise does not explain (showing that the efficacy of this sūtra cannot be equaled by the merit of giving); the sixth, "does not equal one saṅkhyā part", is called "superiority in non-similarity", because this merit is countless while that merit is countable—if this merit is countless, why say it does not equal one part?; the seventh, "does not equal one upaniṣad part", is called "superiority in cause", because the causes and effects of this merit surpass the causes and effects of that [giving]. Although such an explanation is given, the rationale has not been seen: these ten are all numerical terms, so why do some reveal superiority in power, some reveal superiority in non-similarity, and some reveal superiority in cause and effect? What this treatise does not explain means: the more divisions there are in a single part, the smaller that single part becomes; it means that the great merit of that extensive giving does not even equal the very least single part of this merit. Therefore, his verse says: "Superiority in number, power, and non-similarity; / non-similarity in cause is also thus; / no worldly dharmas whatsoever / can serve as a simile for it."